On 10 Jan 2001 09:04:51 -0800 Frank Paris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I'm still not convinced that there's a > necessary mapping between actual density and ADC resolution. It's not 'necessary' inasmuch as it /could/ be done differently, but AFAIK the only CCD prosumer unit to do non-linear mapping was the Olympus ES10. It usually isn't because of cost, complexity, and the extra noise imposed by analogue processing - though the technique is common in PMT scanners. However it is the only way to escape the hard limit of DMax (=noise voltage):DMin (max volts), a voltage ratio which must be mapped to available bits. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
- Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 ... Julian Robinson
- Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan... Chris McBrien
- Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprint... Julian Robinson
- RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan... shAf
- filmscanners: Magicscan and Umax Geoffrey McKell
- RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprint... Julian Robinson
- Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan... Tony Sleep
- RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprint... Frank Paris
- Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sp... Erik Kaffehr
- filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Tony Sleep
- filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Julian Robinson
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Julian Robinson
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Rob Geraghty
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Hersch Nitikman
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Mike Kersenbrock
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Julian Robinson
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Bob Shomler